Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 10th, 2020

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Dr. Williams, thanks for being here today, I really appreciate the work that you're doing.

I have a mother in long-term care here in Ontario, and a major outbreak in a nursing home in my riding. I have deep concerns about our residents in long-term care.

We also heard from the long-term care association that there was quite a number of outbreaks.

Could you table the data on the number of cases across Ontario in long-term care, for residents and staff, including private, non-profit and publicly run long-term care facilities?

[Dr. David Williams]

I will check with the ministry to see if it can do that. I have the numbers for today. I just don't have them broken down by all those categories. I'll see if the ministry can provide those by the different types of administration of the different institutions.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

I know rapid testing is often talked about in political spheres as a panacea. However we know, based on the some of the comments you've already made, that it is not: there's a whole testing regime and many aspects to this.

What is the main risk? Why is rapid testing not a panacea? Is it because of the false negatives that we get?

[Dr. David Williams]

Any test has what we call sensitivity and specificity. We have to do the ratings of those tests, and then you look at their positive predictive value, as well as the aspect of false positives and false negatives.

If we're okay to allow that to occur, then the testing would be fine. If there are settings where we are very concerned and we don't want to miss results, then we'll have to do repeat testing to overcome some of those limitations, and then do backup with the PCR to ensure that.

We've done some. So far, for example, with the Panbio, if we do repeat testing we find the positive is good. The false negative means we're serial testing to limit that impact.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

We'll get through the Bloc and NDP questioning, and then we will have to transition into our second panel.

Mr. Therrien, you have two and a half minutes.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

If I understood correctly, Dr. Williams, you said that the byelections did not cause a significant increase in cases. Is that correct?

[Dr. David Williams]

That is correct. We didn't see any evidence of an attributed increase in cases in those areas by our local health unit that was monitoring the situation.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I would like to understand. When the byelections were held, were they in the red zone? Was the pandemic already severe in those areas?

[Dr. David Williams]

If I recall the dates correctly, it was in October. I am not sure if there were any in November. The by-elections were in modified stage two areas. They transitioned into the new framework that put them in the red zone.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

So those regions were not in the red zone from the outset. Is that correct?

[Dr. David Williams]

They were not there because we hadn't put the framework in place yet.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Would things have changed if those areas had been in the red zone?

[Dr. David Williams]

Not really. We were still monitoring the number of cases and the rates and all that.

It would not significantly change our measures, but the red zone would be brought in earlier. We modified the template even lower, later in November, and that meant the limitations on restaurants' indoor capacity and outdoor capacity might have had some impact if people were having, say, an election campaign meeting, and how many people could be at a group gathering inside versus outside.

That did get enhanced and even further limited in the grey/lockdown zones.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Dr. Williams, let me thank you for joining us and congratulate you on the work you are doing. Without you, life would be much more difficult. So I want to thank you for being with us and for being there for our people. What you are doing for us is invaluable.

[Dr. David Williams]

Thank you for that.

I represent a very large team. Many people are involved and everybody is doing their best.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Mr. Blaikie, two and a half minutes, please.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I want to add my thanks to the course of thanks for all the work that you and your team are doing.

I wonder if you could help us drill down into this question. Let's imagine a particular long-term care facility that's in outbreak and we want to ensure that everybody who's living there is able to vote during an election if that's their choice. We know that the health care staff there are likely already overburdened and stretched very thin, so helping patients vote, on top of the regular duties, is a real challenge. We know that, in many cases, even the non-medical staff in personal care homes are stretched very thin at this time. We know sometimes long-term care facilities will have a roster of volunteers who in normal times would have been there to help with various tasks. We know many residents would need somebody there alongside them to assist them with the voting process. Even if they were able to procure a mail-in ballot, many might need help filling out that ballot.

What do you think is the best advice we could give to long-term care facilities and to Elections Canada? In keeping with the best public health advice, where should they be looking to get that staff time or volunteer time, or people who could go in and assist long-term care residents with voting in a way that protects their health and safety so they're not disenfranchised because we left it to medical staff who are already trying to do the impossible just treating patients?

What's the best way to try to ensure that they have that help if they need it and that the help isn't people who, yes, are trained, but who are then trying to move from facility to facility because we can't replicate that expertise in each facility? That obviously would present some very serious health challenges as well.

What can we do?

[Dr. David Williams]

It's a matter of looking at the demographics and assessing each home. As you've seen in Ontario, what we've tried to do, even in the lockdown zone this time where they're having no visitors, is that we have gone to the process of having essential visitors. We hope every resident has a registered essential visitor or visitors for them, who have gone through the process of logging and being recognized, and they are doing the regular testing as well. However, there might be some cases where there is no essential visitor linked to that individual.

We'd have to look at how many people in that group are medically and mentally capable of voting, who don't have alternate decision-makers, as in family members who could submit those documents. Then, if there were a large number in some of the large centres, would you want to designate, I don't know what their title could be, a scrutineer or whoever, who would go through the process of documenting, getting tested and being able to go in at a certain time and undertake that and being able to access that? We'd have to think how it might work, but that's when there is no essential—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I know we're short on time.

Is that a realistic administrative burden for long-term care facilities right now? I'm in Manitoba and we're in full lockdown.

There's a personal—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We're out of time, unless you have a quick yes or no in answer to that.

[Dr. David Williams]

I'd say it's difficult, and that's why we have the essential visitor program in Ontario.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Dr. Williams, thank you. Once again, of course, as all of the members of the committee have thanked you, I as chair, and I'm sure everyone who has a part in putting this committee together, thank you for the work you have done.

The federal government and I'm sure all the provincial governments really do realize that public health needs to be adequately resourced and respected. You have done tremendous work. Thank you for that.

We will switch to the next panel. We'll suspend for about a minute to do the sound checks and come right back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Welcome back. We're going to get started.

I want to remind everyone to ensure they are in gallery view, so everyone can be seen. To do so, you can click on “view” in the right-hand top corner.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the new witnesses.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. When you are ready to speak, you can click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. I also want to remind you that mikes are not going to be controlled automatically, so please put yourself on mute after speaking.

Interpretation in the video conference will work very much like it does in a regular committee meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. “Floor” is for those who are fluent in English and French.

When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

The use of headsets is strongly encouraged. I'm hopeful you received the authorized headset from the clerk. I see all of you with one. That's great. Thank you for that.

Now I'd like to formally welcome all of our witnesses to today's committee meeting, the first on the prorogation study.

I welcome Professor Daniel Turp, from the Université de Montréal; Professor Philippe Lagassé, from Carleton University; Kathy Brock, professor of policy studies at Queen's University; and Barbara Messamore, professor in the history department at the University of the Fraser Valley.

At the outset, I'd like to apologize, because I know that at least one of the witnesses was sent communications that were only in English. That was definitely an error on our part by our team, and I apologize for that. We will try to do our best to make sure that does not happen again. As I mentioned before, interpretation services are available throughout this meeting, so there should be no problems in the meeting today.

Each of the witnesses will get a five-minute opening statement, and we'll start with Mr. Turp.

[Daniel Turp, Associate Professor, Université de Montréal, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee.

I'm here with you actually on International Human Rights Day. I'm not sure whether your Parliament will mark this event, but 72 years ago, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which addresses the political rights of democratic societies. So I wanted to point it out.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in your study. I have read the report entitled “August 2020 Prorogation—COVID-19 Pandemic,” in which the government sets out the reasons for deciding to prorogue Parliament on August 18 and to set the start of the 2nd session of the 43rd Parliament for September 23, 2020.

As a contribution to this debate, I propose to comment on the decision to prorogue by talking about prerogatives, hypocrisy and democracy.

Let's talk about prerogatives first. The prorogation of the 43rd Parliament was decided by the Governor General of Canada on the advice of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in exercising a prerogative power. This may be the first time the members of the committee hear of this, but the source of this prerogative seems to be in a memorandum outlining some prime-ministerial duties, and adopted on October 25, 1935. I have actually appended to my opening remarks the official version of that memorandum in the English language, available only in the English language, and I therefore hope that my opening statement will be translated.

The interesting part about this declaration, the memorandum, is that it refers to matters that fall within the special prerogative of the prime minister, including the dissolution and convocation of Parliament. Prorogation is not mentioned in the memorandum. So I wanted to bring that to the attention of the committee and invite you to consider whether it really is a prime minister's special prerogative or whether the prerogative exists only for the dissolution and convocation of Parliament. Does the Prime Minister really have the power to recommend the prorogation of Parliament as Prime Minister Trudeau did before him, but as Prime Minister Harper and other prime ministers in Canada's constitutional history also have done?

Let me talk about hypocrisy. I regret that I have to use that word because it is a harsh one. However, in the report before you, which explains the reasons for the recent prorogation, the reasons cited are clearly difficult to identify at first. I personally had great difficulty in identifying them when I read the report. My understanding is that they are revealed in the conclusion, which states the following:

In considering the challenges immediately before us, the experience from the first wave behind us, and the hard work still ahead, it was very clear in August that we needed to reset the agenda and obtain the confidence of the House, in order to move forward.

So there are two reasons, two obligations that the government seems to be imposing on itself: to reset its agenda and to obtain the confidence of the House. In my statement, I confess my hesitation about prorogation being needed to reset the agenda. The government is constantly resetting its agenda and can reset it, of course, in a subsequent Speech from the Throne without having to prorogue Parliament. It can follow the normal parliamentary calendar, the one it has used and shared with other members of the House.

As for the confidence of the House, on August 18, 2020, the government did have the confidence of the House. It did have the confidence of the House, so this is not a reason; it is not a valid reason. We know the real reasons. Some people will have difficulty admitting that the real reason was to shut down the committees and make them lose their mandate to study the WE Charity matter. This is the case for four of your House of Commons committees: the Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Those reasons are not mentioned in the report. This report is therefore no demonstration of transparency, but a sad example of hypocrisy.

My last point is about democracy. Let me bring to the committee's attention the important ruling of the U.K. Supreme Court, handed down on September 24, 2019, about the right to exercise the power of prorogation.

In a case about Brexit, the U.K. Supreme Court stated that the power of prorogation cannot be exercised without respect for Parliament's ability to exercise its constitutional functions as a legislature. This decision should influence the course of events in Canada. In the future, prorogation should not be exercised as it has been and should not prevent Parliament from continuing the serious consideration of a matter such as the WE Charity.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Professor Turp.

Next we have Professor Lagassé. Go ahead for five minutes, please.